Link aggregation site was emulating Mega's logos and had no copyright policy.

Share this story

At the same time as Kim Dotcom's new storage service Mega was brashly launched 10 days ago, a third-party link-aggregating site called Mega-search.me was also created. Earlier this week, Mega-search.me got real use—and real attention—when the files shared there started disappearing from Mega.

The mega-search site looks and feels like a search engine, but the only thing that's searchable on it are files on Mega that Mega users have chosen to share, along with the encryption keys needed to unlock such files.

"It has come to MEGA's attention that there are micro search engines that use our (M) logo and other MEGA branding without authorization," states the unsigned post. "Worse, such site(s) were reported in a highly publicized manner and purport to be globally available search engines, but don't have their own DMCA takedown policy or registered DMCA agent."

The whole point of Mega is to have increased privacy and security vis-a-vis other cloud services, so sharing encryption keys "utterly eviscerate[s]" the goal, states the post. Then there's this vague tidbit at the end: "We do believe that by ignoring our advice and making encryption keys public, especially through sites that do not even implement a proper notice-and-takedown protocol, you were not entirely unprepared for negative repercussions."

Also, those who did point to files using the mega-search.me site got notices that their files were subject to a DMCA copyright-related takedown—regardless of whether their files were apparently pirated material or legal. Since it was Mega itself that was breaking the links, those DMCA notices were an odd, and presumably erroneous, explanation to users.

One can draw two conclusions from this episode. First of all, it seems perfectly legitimate to do something about a third-party search engine that not only played fast and loose with the rules but also emulated Mega's logo. In fact, if Mega really wants to withstand the next legal assault, it would have been foolish to do nothing about Mega-search. Cries that Mega was "censoring" content were overblown, to say the least.

Still, the whole episode raises questions about what kinds of sharing would be allowed through Mega. Would sharing encryption keys publicly be OK if the site didn't emulate Mega's logo, or if it had a takedown policy that Mega viewed as "responsible?" That's not clear.

49 Reader Comments

"It has come to MEGA's attention that there are micro search engines that use our (M) logo and other MEGA branding without authorization."Am I think only one who finds Mega's defense of their own, for lack of a better term, IP, funny?

"It has come to MEGA's attention that there are micro search engines that use our (M) logo and other MEGA branding without authorization."Am I think only one who finds Mega's defense of their own, for lack of a better term, IP, funny?

Doubt it. There have to be other folks unclear on the difference between trademark and copyright and the implications of infringement vis-a-vis scarcity and marginal cost.

"It has come to MEGA's attention that there are micro search engines that use our (M) logo and other MEGA branding without authorization."Am I think only one who finds Mega's defense of their own, for lack of a better term, IP, funny?

Doubt it. There have to be other folks unclear on the difference between trademark and copyright and the implications of infringement vis-a-vis scarcity and marginal cost.

I was thinking more something about complaining about others not following the rules, while having a history of breaking them themselves.

"It has come to MEGA's attention that there are micro search engines that use our (M) logo and other MEGA branding without authorization."Am I think only one who finds Mega's defense of their own, for lack of a better term, IP, funny?

Doubt it. There have to be other folks unclear on the difference between trademark and copyright and the implications of infringement vis-a-vis scarcity and marginal cost.

Oh I get it. You think I don't understand the situation and the difference. No, it is pretty clear. The part I think you missed is that defending your own brand while simultaneously trying to get rich by exploiting other people's IP is just hilarious.

Kimdotcom of all people should know that there is something seriously wrong with mass deleting perfectly legitimate content because he thinks that it is somehow contributing to the infringement of his IP.

"It has come to MEGA's attention that there are micro search engines that use our (M) logo and other MEGA branding without authorization."Am I think only one who finds Mega's defense of their own, for lack of a better term, IP, funny?

Not really, Megaupload complied with US DMCA laws when it was operating and so is MEGA now. Just because they made it easy to share IP and didn't take it down on there own doesn't mean they were facilitating the process..

"It has come to MEGA's attention that there are micro search engines that use our (M) logo and other MEGA branding without authorization."Am I think only one who finds Mega's defense of their own, for lack of a better term, IP, funny?

Doubt it. There have to be other folks unclear on the difference between trademark and copyright and the implications of infringement vis-a-vis scarcity and marginal cost.

Both are IP. We shouldn't apply double standarts. I'm aware that Mega must defend their trademark in order to not lose it, but it's still ironic.

"It has come to MEGA's attention that there are micro search engines that use our (M) logo and other MEGA branding without authorization."Am I think only one who finds Mega's defense of their own, for lack of a better term, IP, funny?

Doubt it. There have to be other folks unclear on the difference between trademark and copyright and the implications of infringement vis-a-vis scarcity and marginal cost.

Both are IP. We shouldn't apply double standarts.

That's like saying both aircraft and cars are vehicles, so they should follow the same standards. It's completely wrong. Trademark is entirely different law with an entirely different theoretical foundation vs patents or copyright. It is extremely pro-consumer and generally decently balanced, and attempting to conflate trademark with copyright or patents demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding.

glap1922 wrote:

Oh I get it. You think I don't understand the situation and the difference.

You clearly don't.

Quote:

The part I think you missed is that defending your own brand while simultaneously trying to get rich by exploiting other people's IP is just hilarious

While I'll grant you that it's a bit impressive that you've managed to cram so much wrong into one sentence, it nevertheless doesn't do much to raise the quality of your post. "Hypocrisy" has got to be one of the most irritatingly common charges to see thrown around online (or offline, for that matter) as the charge is so very often wrong.

Not surprising, especially at this early date.I doubt MEGA has any intention of eliminating every sharing site that pops up. They're doing what's necessary to send a message, by smacking the most blatant violators:

"Listen up nitwits. Either keep it on the DL, or maintain plausible deniability."

Kimdotcom of all people should know that there is something seriously required with mass deleting perfectly copyrighted content because he thinks that it is somehow required by the DMCA notice and take-down clause to delete unauthorized content that is listed on a site that also so happens to pose trademark infringement of his IP.

"It has come to MEGA's attention that there are micro search engines that use our (M) logo and other MEGA branding without authorization."Am I think only one who finds Mega's defense of their own, for lack of a better term, IP, funny?

Doubt it. There have to be other folks unclear on the difference between trademark and copyright and the implications of infringement vis-a-vis scarcity and marginal cost.

Both are IP. We shouldn't apply double standarts.

That's like saying both aircraft and cars are vehicles, so they should follow the same standards. It's completely wrong. Trademark is entirely different law with an entirely different theoretical foundation vs patents or copyright. It is extremely pro-consumer and generally decently balanced, and attempting to conflate trademark with copyright or patents demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding.

glap1922 wrote:

Oh I get it. You think I don't understand the situation and the difference.

You clearly don't.

Quote:

The part I think you missed is that defending your own brand while simultaneously trying to get rich by exploiting other people's IP is just hilarious

While I'll grant you that it's a bit impressive that you've managed to cram so much wrong into one sentence, it nevertheless doesn't do much to raise the quality of your post. "Hypocrisy" has got to be one of the most irritatingly common charges to see thrown around online (or offline, for that matter) as the charge is so very often wrong.

Which part was incorrect, exactly? Was it that he is defending his own IP, in this case a brand, or the fact that he has built his life on making money by exploiting the IP of others?

"It has come to MEGA's attention that there are micro search engines that use our (M) logo and other MEGA branding without authorization."Am I think only one who finds Mega's defense of their own, for lack of a better term, IP, funny?

Doubt it. There have to be other folks unclear on the difference between trademark and copyright and the implications of infringement vis-a-vis scarcity and marginal cost.

Both are IP. We shouldn't apply double standarts.

That's like saying both aircraft and cars are vehicles, so they should follow the same standards. It's completely wrong. Trademark is entirely different law with an entirely different theoretical foundation vs patents or copyright. It is extremely pro-consumer and generally decently balanced, and attempting to conflate trademark with copyright or patents demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding.

glap1922 wrote:

Oh I get it. You think I don't understand the situation and the difference.

You clearly don't.

Quote:

The part I think you missed is that defending your own brand while simultaneously trying to get rich by exploiting other people's IP is just hilarious

While I'll grant you that it's a bit impressive that you've managed to cram so much wrong into one sentence, it nevertheless doesn't do much to raise the quality of your post. "Hypocrisy" has got to be one of the most irritatingly common charges to see thrown around online (or offline, for that matter) as the charge is so very often wrong.

I don't need another analogy. They are not the same, but laws grant you right to defend any kind of IP.You may try hard to build some kind of ideology around trademarks, but the reality is that Mega use trademarks to defend their business. It's no different than others using copyright to defend their business.

Which part was incorrect, exactly? Was it that he is defending his own IP, in this case a brand, or the fact that he has built his life on making money by exploiting the IP of others?

While it's probably incorrect to say you're wrong, I think you're arguing something different than xoa is (or perhaps the other way around.)

While Mega is probably "accidentally" infringing copyrights of, say, major record labels, they aren't infringing their trademarks at all. If they had a bunch of RIAA member companies' logos on their homepage purporting to be affiliated with them, then they would indeed be infringing on trademarks. To tie the two different forms of IP together is misguided at best. As it stands, I don't see them as being hypocritical, even if what they're doing is somewhat counter-intuitive, perhaps even immoral in the public's view, but likely not good for their image regardless.

Which part was incorrect, exactly? Was it that he is defending his own IP, in this case a brand, or the fact that he has built his life on making money by exploiting the IP of others?

While it's probably incorrect to say you're wrong, I think you're arguing something different than xoa is (or perhaps the other way around.)

While Mega is probably "accidentally" infringing copyrights of, say, major record labels, they aren't infringing their trademarks at all. If they had a bunch of RIAA member companies' logos on their homepage purporting to be affiliated with them, then they would indeed be infringing on trademarks. To tie the two different forms of IP together is misguided at best. As it stands, I don't see them as being hypocritical, even if what they're doing is somewhat counter-intuitive, perhaps even immoral in the public's view, but likely not good for their image regardless.

The fact that you put "accidentally" in quote was exactly my point. I never said they were exactly the same, but the essence of the situation still stands as, "We will protect our IP, but we will make money by assisting in people infringing on yours." I just can't get behind the splitting of hairs to say, "There are different forms of IP, so it is okay to protect ours and help people infringe on yours because they are technically a little different.I never said it was hypocritical, to be honest I think it just shows a huge lack of self-awareness on their part. I don't believe for a moment that Mega doesn't look at things the same way as xoa.

For the record, not trying to argue with you even though we disagree. The fact that you can disagree without spewing insults at people is refreshing on here.

The reason Megaupload (RIP) was generating so much money is because people paid to get better bandwidth because it was used to download shared files. with this stupid stunt, Mega is simply saying "don't share through us" so that makes me wonder how long they will hold out like this.TorrentFreak did an experiment where they uploaded some freely distributed music, some linux distros and I think even some of Kim Dotcom's music (that was free). they posted it on Mega-Search and it was automatically removed from Mega within minutes. just comes to say that if you're an artist and want to share your music Mega isn't the service to use for that because you can't link to your files through other sites without fearing it will be taken down for whatever reason.

It's too early for me to trust Mega with my files even though they hand out 50GB.

"It has come to MEGA's attention that there are micro search engines that use our (M) logo and other MEGA branding without authorization."Am I think only one who finds Mega's defense of their own, for lack of a better term, IP, funny?

No, I find it quite reasonable. This only looks inconsistent or problematic if you insist on lumping copyright and trademark together under the umbrella term "IP". Copyright and trademark exist for completely different purposes. About the only thing they have in common is that both grant an exclusive legal monopoly on performing certain activities, but the specific activities that they restrict are different, as is the justification for granting the monopolies. It is quite possible to be a strong supporter of trademark, while thinking that copyrights need to be weakened or eliminated, and not be inconsistent or hypocritical.

Also, "Intellectual Property" isn't even a good collective term to refer to Copyright, Trademark and Patents. "Intellectual Monopoly" would be more accurate. Even then, such a collective term should only be used in the rare cases where it is useful to refer to all of these separate systems collectively, rather than individually. For most purposes, it's much more useful to refer specifically to the particular system that is relevant to the discussion rather than using a generic term like IP or IM.

I hate to agree with one of the above 1-liners, but I worry the tone of the article is a bit apologistic (is that a word?) toward Mega because of all the bad crap Dotcom and his company have gone through with the US.

I'm not saying that's what the article is doing, but my impression is this particular bit of press is too quick to forgive.

Kimdotcom of all people should know that there is something seriously wrong with mass deleting perfectly legitimate content because he thinks that it is somehow contributing to the infringement of his IP.

Mega hypocrisy.

He didn't delete anything, just shutdown the site and remove the sharing links.

He didn't delete anything, just shutdown the site and remove the sharing links.

That's what I'm not really getting here. Just from looking at the site it's pretty clear, or at least it was to me, that sharing files publically via Mega was the intent of the service. Were that the case they would have stated it up front and preached it to the hills as something like "and just like our previous service you can share your files with friends and family...." or something along those lines.

A lot of people made this assumption that Mega was going to be just like Megaupload and as everyone is already seeing that was never the intent. So why is everyone getting all angry over something they never said they were going to be in the first place? That is unless someone can point to something on the Mega site that specifically spells out that you would be able to do so?

The man is in trouble, he doesn't want to be part of the file sharing game. He has all to lose if implicated in any copyrighted file sharing. I hate the dcma act and the RIAA and MPAA authorities as much as most of you, but I also respect when some one is scared of getting in trouble, because they already are in trouble. It's like asking a drug dealer has an ankle monitor to bring you a bag. It just isn't gonna happen unless he is stupid. If you want to share your files there are plenty of torrent sites still running.

He just want to be a cloud storage service. Why can't people just use his service as it is intended. I am and it is working out great for me. Its a drop box on steroids.

The man is in trouble, he doesn't want to be part of the file sharing game. He has all to lose if implicated in any copyrighted file sharing. I hate the dcma act and the RIAA and MPAA authorities as much as most of you, but I also respect when some one is scared of getting in trouble, because they already are in trouble. It's like asking a drug dealer has an ankle monitor to bring you a bag. It just isn't gonna happen unless he is stupid. If you want to share your files there are plenty of torrent sites still running.

He just want to be a cloud storage service. Why can't people just use his service as it is intended. I am and it is working out great for me. Its a drop box on steroids.

I think you're pretty close to accurate here, but I prefer the analogy of a mob kingpin going clean; although I personally think that Megaupload wasn't doing anything criminal, the American government is treating him like a criminal, so it's a reasonable analogy.

He's got his (supposedly) ill-gotten gains, the cops are wise to him, but that doesn't mean he needs to disappear. He can create effectively the same business, but this time he takes great pains to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing. Look at the main argument for file-sharing sites: it allows people to easily store and share content that they own or that is in the public domain. That's what he wants Mega to look like, but only an idiot would assume that users would only upload legitimate files, so this additional layer of encryption is added. This makes it hard for the "copyright police" to identify files that infringe, and as long as the company finds and cuts off any link site that's too obvious it'll be very hard for the site to fall afoul of copyright laws.

Of course you can share your links - you can even post them publicly on social networking sites, blogs, comments, forum threads, etc. Individual links to "clean" files are probably going to slide by, and possibly individual links to copyrighted files at all. If there's no centralized source to index files, the links and information is going to be so widespread and fragmented that Mega can easily claim that it had no idea that User X posted the link for Copyrighted file Y in /b. And it's almost certainly true - if the Art Collector has proven anything, it's that the best way to stay clean is to make sure that you clearly know absolutely nothing about unethical activities done by the employees or users.

So if I store a file at Mega and then publish its link in order to share it then it will be deleted with a spurious DMCA takedown notice? That greatly diminishes the utility of MEGA as a cloud storage platform.

If I'm wrong, and one link is OK, then is two?, three? ... ten thousand?

"It has come to MEGA's attention that there are micro search engines that use our (M) logo and other MEGA branding without authorization."Am I think only one who finds Mega's defense of their own, for lack of a better term, IP, funny?

Hilarious.

I'm pretty sure their lawyers were reading Ars and saw the website and were like "Well, I guess when we took this job, we should have bought brown pants."

First of all, it seems perfectly legitimate to do something about a third-party search engine that not only played fast and loose with the rules but also emulated Mega's logo. In fact, if Mega really wants to withstand the next legal assault, it would have been foolish to do nothing about Mega-search. Cries that Mega was "censoring" content were overblown, to say the least.

Bolded for truth.

I mean, seriously folks, we all know that MEGA's got on a target on its back, and that those jackals in the RIAA/MPAA and the DOJ would love to try and use something like Mega-search as a reason to accuse Dotcom of violating bail and then lock his ass up so they can extradite him over to the US for his witch-erm, court trial.

If you seriously CANNOT help uploading files and just have to share your copyrighted files WITH THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD (which a lot of people seem compelled to do for some reason), keep it on the down-low!

And quit whining about MEGA not being the be-all, end-all of file-sharing sites. It's still in the beta, and hasn't been out for more than 2 weeks yet. Have a little patience people!

Maybe Ars should stop reporting so much on MEGA so that the company (and the users) can get a little breathing room...

But hey, MEGA's news, so its not like that's gonna happen anytime soon.

"It has come to MEGA's attention that there are micro search engines that use our (M) logo and other MEGA branding without authorization."Am I think only one who finds Mega's defense of their own, for lack of a better term, IP, funny?

Doubt it. There have to be other folks unclear on the difference between trademark and copyright and the implications of infringement vis-a-vis scarcity and marginal cost.

Both are IP. We shouldn't apply double standarts. I'm aware that Mega must defend their trademark in order to not lose it, but it's still ironic.

I disagree.

Copyright and Patents are designed to provide a monopoly to anyone who creates anything. Trademark is designed to prevent customers from being confused about whether or not some business is affiliated (or part of) some other business.

There is a big difference. We need stronger trademark protection and weaker copyright/patent protection.

Also, I'm not convinced MegaUpload broke any laws. I haven't done enough research to be certain, but I've done enough to believe they might very well have been perfectly legit. The DMCA is supposed to indemnify businesses like MegaUpload and DropBox and YouTube from *their customer's* copyright violation. Dotcom's lawyer claims they were conforming to the DMCA and everything I've seen so far says he is right.

Mega Is deleting the files of its own customers (100% legal files), automatically and intentionally. That is wrong. Even assuming that the search site was infringing the Mega trademark, the proper response to that is to sue the search site for trademark infringement. Mega is instead punishing its own innocent customers, without due process, for a third-party action that they have absolutely no responsibility for. In addition, Mega intentionally and repeatedly lied to its own customers by falsely claiming that it had received takedown requests - each such false takedown was actually a malicious act initiated by Mega itself.

So if I store a file at Mega and then publish its link in order to share it then it will be deleted with a spurious DMCA takedown notice? That greatly diminishes the utility of MEGA as a cloud storage platform.

If I'm wrong, and one link is OK, then is two?, three? ... ten thousand?

Some clarity of explanation is required from Kim.

Mega wouldn't even need to to resort to DMCA, if the terms of service clearly stated that sharing links to content publicly would result in the source content being quarantined or deleted. In many ways you can't claim "fair use", if you are sharing the content publicly. For stuff that is your own stuff, such as photos and videos you created, then there should be a way for you to digitally sign the stuff with your real name.

For those that are not computer-controlled personas but defend the mass-executions of perfectly legal files as acceptable collateral damage in the War Against Piracy, buzz off!

If you're a bit enterprising, register a domain akin to MEGA-Warez.fr and start spidering the web for any and all links to files hosted on MEGA, in addition to the "submission system".

Dotcom will have a choice. Either files will no longer be indiscriminately deleted just because they are indexed on a search site, or MEGA can no longer be used as a way to share *legal* files publicly.

He just want to be a cloud storage service. Why can't people just use his service as it is intended. I am and it is working out great for me. Its a drop box on steroids.

Other cloud storage services, like Google Cloud Storage or Amazon S3, let you use their service to host files. E.g. file downloads for your web app, static resources used in your web app, photos users upload, etc. They are meant to be generic data stores.

It looks like I wouldn't be able to do that on Mega

Or maybe I could if I were discreet about it? From this article it sounds like my resources might get arbitrarily deleted if I were using Mega as a data store backing some web app I make.